The Eu Demand Release Dates...give Them Release Dates..

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25574176
I've always admired the way the US system ignores human longevity in sentencing. It seems an unexpected side effect of EU meddling that we now are looking at introducing a similar system.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25574176 - Good idea?

[jake-the-peg]

A) This is the Council of Europe convention on Human rights not the EU

B) This is sentence review rather than release dates

Otherwise spot on

[Zacs-Master]

I can't see anywhere where it says the EU are demanding release dates.

[youngmafbog]

//People serving life sentences are serving three years longer than they did 10 years ago.//

Hmmm, surely by definition a life sentence should be for life so how can you complain they are serving 3 years longer? bloody do gooding lefty liberals get right on my ***

Agree TTT, lets give them a date - 200years from sentencing.

[ToraToraTora]

ok without splitting hairs about which part of the UK subjugation system is doing it, I was under the impression that some organ or other was pressing for all prisoners do be given a specific release date.

[brionon]

AS usual -Thatcher lover -you got it Wrong-Pitiful innit !!

[Zacs-Master]

I can assure you that I am no ones lap dog. I just have an issue with factually incorrect questions.

[ToraToraTora]

good constructive comment from brionon, well done must have taken a lot of thought. Looks like I'm keeping the avatar a bit longer!

Sorr if I have not identified the exact department. Will the anti British above please assure me that no section of the Europe/EU/ECHR/etc is trying to force the issue of release dates. If they are not why does the PM feel the need to act. thanks

[Baldric]

In the case of murderers, they have taken a life, I see no reason why they shouldn't effectively lose the rest of theirs by being jailed.

[jim360]

As I understand it, the ruling from the ECHR was that we should not give sentences that carry no chance of parole, ever. This is very different from demanding a release date -- merely, it demands that the prisoner be given the chance to demonstrate that he is fit for release. Such people may never be fit for release, but 30, 40, 50 years on from the original crime, isn't it worth checking just in case we were wrong in the first place? This won't necessarily need to such people being released, because they probably will never convince the parole board anyway.

In terms of the original question: not sure if it's a good idea or not. Personally a think dishing out a sentence of 1000 years or something is just silly. No-one can ever serve such a sentence (unless you applied it also to their cadaver afterwards, strung up in the street for the crows to peck at like in the good old days...) so it seems to be closer to vengeance than actual justice. More to the point, I'm not sure that it would really address the ECHR's point, which is that people should always have a chance of parole during their sentence. Again, I stress that this is not that everyone should be released from prison at some point no matter what. It's merely that they should have the chance to be. That is a huge difference.

[ToraToraTora]

oh brionon, I almost forgot my manners, thank you for the compliment.

[puternut]

The BBC News channel covered this a little earlier and had a lawyer to do with British Human Rights - quite why he was in Sydney - unless he is still on Christmas leave - stating that the ' prison for life' term is actually banned by a British law from the 1600's so has nothing to do with EU/European Court of Human Rights/Council of Europe.

However my guess is that the same law advocates might capital punishment for murder so ... take your choice

[bazwillrun]

as usual an outside organisation is laying down the law , what it wants what it doesnt in out country

and still some on here think thats ok

[viv38]

I'm not one of the ones that thinks t's OK.

[Brenden]

Life meaning life was the basis for the referenum being passed on the death penalty being abolished -

[ichkeria]

Sentencing someone with an average life expectancy of 70-odd years to 500 years in jail has never struck me as a particularly sensible approach

[New Judge]

As an aside whilst it is quite correct to say that this dispute has its origins with the European Court of Human Rights, anyone who believes that our membership of the EU and our compliance with ECHR decisions are unconnected is deluded.

Whilst it is certainly true that these two esteemed organisations had different origins, for different purposes at different times, the two are now inextricably linked. The Convention was drafted by the Council of Europe and all Council members are party to it and are bound by it (and so by definition are bound by the decisions of the Court). All EU members are also members of the Council of Europe and it is most unlikely that any nation that was not a member would be allowed to join the EU and even more unlikely that any member State of the EU which withdrew from the Council of Europe would be permitted to remain an EU member.

As if this was not enough, following on from a clause in the Treaty of Lisbon, in 2010 the EU itself acceded to the Convention so binding all member states to it and to decisions of the Court:

http://hub.coe.int/what-we-do/human-rights/eu-accession-to-the-convention

So whilst we watch the Prime Minister beat his chest and threaten to do all manner of things which will disentangle us from the ECHR, unless he is also considering the UK’s withdrawal from the EU (which is about as likely as me winning the Men’s Downhill at the forthcoming Winter Olympics) he might as well tell us he is abolishing Income Tax.

So please, let's hear no more talk of the European Court of Human Rights and the EU being separate entities. They are peas of a pod and both have the sole aim of subjugation individual nation states, their democracy and legislature.

On the particular question raised by TTT, sentencing somebody to a sentence from which they have no relaistic chance of release will incur the same wrath of the ECHR as have "whole life" sentences and playing with the semantics of the wording will not alter that. The UK cannot decide these matters any longer.

[New Judge]

There was no referendum on the abolition of the death penalty, Brenden. But the alternative of (the rest of your) life in prison was certainly the basis on which the abolition was sold to the gullible electorate. (For why else call them "Life" sentences. And per..lease do not bang on about those release being liable to be recalled at any time).

[LazyGun]

"So please, let's hear no more talk of the European Court of Human Rights and the EU being separate entities. They are peas of a pod and both have the sole aim of subjugation individual nation states, their democracy and legislature."

Being their "sole aim"? This is the language of the paranoid, and lessens any strength your argument might have had NJ.

I certainly do not admire a legal system that imposes sentences in the hundreds of years, or more. It is a ridiculous system, it is a joke.

And as an aside - those who argue against your view, 3T, are not "anti-British" simply because they take a different position. Your constant wrapping of yourself and your subjective opinion in the flag of patriotism has moved well beyond tiresome and into the offensive.

Life should mean life. There are some prisoners who should never be released, either because of the danger they would still represent to society, or because their crime was so heinous that no other punishment will serve. But they are the minority of crimes, and we should have a discretionary punitive system, one that recognises the right to an appeal or a review for all prisoners, even these, rather than just a blanket, one size fits all "whole life" tariff.

[brionon]

bazwillrun An outside organisation set up with British Lawyers-try to get it right !!